I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty. I've read the whole thing and participated in meetings to select language. I'm pretty sure it doesn't include anything in there that would allow the UN to take over America... sure, the middle eastern countries included some language about making sure the disabled were protected in occupied territories to see if they could make israel look bad... but that was moved from the treaty into the non-binding preable.

also the mid-east countries took out all the language about allowing people with disabilities receive information about sexuality (which was stupid because as a non-discrimiantion treaty it only asked that they be given the same information as their non-disabled peers. So if your country is run by a bunch of primitive prudes that provide zero information on sexuality to its citizens, you were free to do that for the disabled as well).

The Troof hurts:Why get worked up about it? We already lead the world by having the ADA as an example. Why does the UN have any bearing on this?

Well, to start, I'm not all that worked up about it, and Lee, the guy who spearheaded the block, is my senator. It isn't going to change a thing for disabled US citizens, obviously. This is just the most recent iteration of this strange American Isolationism that we see a lot from tea-party-backed congresspersons. We live in an increasingly global culture, in an undeniably global economy, and the UN is crafting these treaties to improve the standard of living worldwide. That's the mission, here: let's make everyone's lives a little better. But when these treaties come to us, we slap them away like a petulant child, for no other reason than to say "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME, NERRRR!" I think it's immature, and I'd like to see the US approach the world (and the UN) in a spirit of cooperation and mutual betterment rather than suspicion and paranoia.

Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions.

Go die. Seriously. Crawl into a farking hole and pull it in after yourself. Repugnant, vile excuse for a human.

Crizpin:Not having read the treaty, this is all second hand. My understanding is that the objection came from schooling options available to parents of disabled children. That is, if we signed the treaty, the UN could/would dictate what schools disabled children must attend. Under our constitution, the treaty would trump any state or federal laws which provide for wider options.

That said, is there any reason to believe the UN mandates are going to do more to protect the disabled than US laws already on the books? When we're being held to the same standards as China, I seriously doubt it.

You're a f*cking idiot. I just want you to know that because the bullsh*t you just spewed was dispelled in almost every post above yours.

IT DOES NOT IMPACT US BECAUSE WE SET THE STANDARD! IT WAS ENACTED TO BRING PEOPLE UP TO OUR LEVEL! THE UN CAN'T MAKE US DO JACK SH*T!

The real reason why the republicans voted against this treaty is because even though we don't really have to change pretty much anything we do by signing it, we would have to submit a report to the UN with information about how the disabled are treated in our country. And sometimes... Americans just have to execute people with cognitive disabilities. Capital punishment of retards coerced into confessing to a murder is a proud American tradition. Now there are some American legal restrictions on free-for-all retard executions. But we've left enough loopholes to let Texas do it every now and then. It's kind of like when Louisiana was the only state that still allowed cock-fighting. But then they caved to those animal rights wusses. But I digress...

If we sign this treaty, then whenever we are having a good olde American retard execution; those America-haters at the UN will probably write a note on our report telling us how it's not cool to execute people with cognitive disabilities. Who are those people to tell us how to celebrate our country? Back when he was governor of TX, America's greatest president executed a handful of men with IQs under 60 and then vetoed against a Texas law to ban the execution of the retarded. YEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAAAA! If executing retards and loving America is wrong, then Republicans don't want to be right! Fark the UN and FARK the retarded!!!

randomjsa:I'm sorry but we're well past the point now... Why are you even trying to defend anything the UN does anymore?

They are nothing without the United States and would cease to exist in no time at all without us and yet they are a favorite tool of anyone who hates this country to bash it over the head with.

Including American liberals.

I'm still waiting for Al "Very Concerned About Rape" Franken to propose defunding any organization whose employees have repeatedly been found to have committed rape or employed under aged prostitutes. I'm all for it. Aren't you? If you are then start writing to Obama and Franken, and ask them to withdraw all support and funding for the UN.

Nice to know you're against helping and protecting the disabled on a worldwide level, farkshiatter. Crawl back into the cess pit with the rest of the vermin.

I've literally never understood this argument. Who the fark cares what we look like to the international community? If the international community jumped off a bridge would we look like an asshole for not following along? This is the United States, we do what we want, when we want, however we want and life is pretty great living here aside from when you libs want to tax us all to death. Screw the UN and the international community.

We had a chance to look like global leaders on human rights, ratifying a treaty based on what has been US law for more than 20 years, affirming our commitment to our injured veterans, disabled children, and people with other disabilities. If we want to be global leaders, we need to act like it... The GOP biatched on Libya, Egypt, and a number of other serious issues about how we're "leading from behind" or "not acting like the leader of the free world"... but when they have the chance to lead, they're too afraid to actually do it.

Republicans are complete, utter scum. This should surprise nobody. If you vote Republican, you are an asshole, period. There are different CATEGORIES of asshole, sure (Rich asshole, fundamentalist asshole, bigoted asshole, just plain stupid asshole, etc.), and combinations thereof, but no matter which category you fall under, YOU. ARE. AN. ASSHOLE.

firefly212:John McCain, Bob Dole, and John Kerry all came together to support this bill... but they were voted down by the new Republican Party. If you think you're voting for the GOP of Reagan, or even of the Clinton-era, you're just wrong... these people are through and through whackjobs.

There is something we can do to combat this. 2014 will be coming up quickly enough, so if you want to take back the country, do these things:

1) help disadvantaged people get state IDs and register to vote.

2) volunteer and fundraise for your local Democratic party.

3) Start making a list of every single one of these things for easier access when reaching out to those that don't vote.

4) Start petitioning to make Election Day a national holiday, or press for more absentee voting.

The party didn't end because Obama got reelected. The Republicans have been playing a long game and will drag their heels as long as they have the power to do so. If we work hard, we can certainly rob them of their power to do that and actually get things done in this country instead of being blocked by ignorant, stupid, and paranoid old assholes.

Oh ffs. At this rate, the next time I travel abroad I'm going to have to tell people I'm from Canada just so I don't have to deal with the inevitable "WTF is wrong with your Republican party?" questions.

/I wish we knew what was wrong with them...we might be able to fix them if we knew.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -Isaac Asimov

Cletus C.:Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?

The treaty was actually based on the ADA... the idea of the treaty was to say that the US is going to be global leaders on the issue of fair treatment of the disabled, as the treaty encompasses what has been US law for more than 20 years. Instead of being the global leaders, the GOP has yet again chosen a position of cowardess, refusing to affirm our commitment to veterans who lose sight or limbs, refusing to affirm our commitment to caring for disabled children... all because they're afraid of imaginary black helicopters. The idea that half our country votes for these shiatstain pansies sickens me.

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.

So, the GOP shoots down a disabled rights treaty that would require us to do what we've already done and continue to willingly do, modeled after our own laws, which made us a world leader in disabled rights, because they're paranoid, misogynistic little oppositional farks

fark you, Neanderthals.

/sincere apology to any Neanderthals or paranoid misogynists who were offended at being compared to modern Republicans.

CapeFearCadaver:What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

It's okay- as a gimp myself, many think of us as being less than human.

For the GOP, it's easy to ignore the handicapped because of many reasons:1) our handicap is a direct result of our sin or parents sin2) both social and natural Darwinism means we are not supposed to survive- so why bother3)They are jealous of all the Freebies we get-like having to spend extra money to be mobile.4) GOP fears those of us with genetic mutations will rise with our mutant powers and overthrow the "normals" Somehow they haven't realized we don't get nifty eye blasts or the ability to mentally manipulate clothing on women so that they fall off. They try to cover up, but it's too late; I've seen everything.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Diogenes: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Diogenes: I want to find out if Cuba voted for it at the UN.

It will make some nice fodder in my strongly-worded letter to Senator Rubio.

Cuba voted for the treaty and ratified it.

Source

Letter's on its way.

Also note that the treaty has been ratified by China, Iran, Russia, and Myanmar.

So basically, just about every major human rights violator has signed on, but not America.

This treaty was signed onto by the most number of countries in the shortest amount of time than any other UN Convention. There is absolutely zero controversial items in there other than the use of the words "reproductive rights" which contrary to derp dogma, does not = abortion.

I think the vatican refused to sign it on that basis alone too... but their delegate wasn't even paying attention during most of the negotiations. He spent most of the time checking out the rack of the hot palestinian representative. All male diplomats were jealous that the observer states get some cozy seat in the back all by themselves, because she was HAWT. Jokes about the vatican delegate actually not being a pedophile were traded by various diplomats at some point... fun was had by all. (The singapore delegation also had a few hotties). Sorry... I took no pics

language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will ''raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference.''

Quite the opposite. That language is meant to keep the disabled from a) being denied reproductive health care because they (and their potentially disabled offspring) are not worth the investment or b) being forced to have an abortion because they are not considered able to care for a child or c) being forcibly sterilized for the same reasons

--Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons--Non-discrimination--Full and effective participation and inclusion in society--Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity--Equality of opportunity--Accessibility--Equality between men and women--Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities

Clearly, this was a sinister UN plot to use disabled people as a pawn to covertly force agenda 21 on us, and overrun America. thank god the GOP saved us from such a dire threat!

alienated:Oh yeah- F you alleged friends of Bob Dole in the Senate. May you meet an untimely death, the lot of you. And I dont really like Bob Dole ...

Whether you agree with Dole's politics or not, he was probably one of the great Senate leaders. He's a moderate Republican (a RINO by today's standards) who had a knack of getting the two sides to come together on an issue. He didn't go to the press and biatch about how the other side was a bunch of jerks, but instead he brought the leaders of both sides into his office to hammer out the details they could both agree to vote on. Imagine that! Actually getting business done in the Senate like adults.

Crizpin:Not having read the treaty, this is all second hand. My understanding is that the objection came from schooling options available to parents of disabled children. That is, if we signed the treaty, the UN could/would dictate what schools disabled children must attend. Under our constitution, the treaty would trump any state or federal laws which provide for wider options.

That said, is there any reason to believe the UN mandates are going to do more to protect the disabled than US laws already on the books? When we're being held to the same standards as China, I seriously doubt it.

You are an idiot. Our constitution IS the supreme law of the land. Nothing is higher than the constitution. The United Nations can't come in and tell any subsidiary nation what to do--no treaty "trumps" the laws of any signatory nation.

If you are talking about Article VI--which I assume is the only thing anyone could be panicking about--and the Supremacy Clause,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

what that means is that federal laws trump state laws ONLY. And treaties made by the federal government have supremacy over state laws. It doesn't make the UN our de facto government...that would be insane. It means that if the US makes a treaty, like a trade treaty, that allows another nation to use the Port of San Diego, then California has to obey that treaty and can't deny that country's ships access because it has a law forbidding it. It DOESN'T mean that the UN has the right to tell America what to do.

Is that really what all this idiocy is about? Holy mother of god. Are people really that stupid?

The GOP, and members of The Family in particular, believe that all laws are for other people, not themselves. They think they are already chosen by God to be leaders, so they are exempt from all laws, ethics, and morals. Probably some of that Old South hierarchy thrown in as well, where the lords of the plantations could do anything to anyone without reprisal.

armoredbulldozer:Vote NO on ANYTHING the UN proposes. Besides, we are all in good hands of the "Anointed One."

GET US OUT OF THE UN !!!

So you're in favor of the US voluntarily surrendering their Security Council veto. (Keep in mind, the Soviets walked out on the Security Council for less than a year, and in that time the Korean War was UN-authorized behind their back.)

skullkrusher:Keizer_Ghidorah: "Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"

ahh, rational discussion like this? I wonder myself why they voted no on this - I find their reasoning to be quite suspect. Rationally speaking, why would you "herp derp" a sentence implying that I said otherwise when I quite clearly stated already that I had serious issues with their reasoning to vote no?Do you not understand what I wrote or have you forgotten already? Maybe you're hoping that I forgot what I wrote and you're perhaps trying to slip a little dishonesty in there? Nothing screams "pay attention to the important point I am about to make!" like putting a "herp derp" in your post

I was talking about how you seem to be reacting to those who are wondering why they voted no, not about the people who did vote no. Maybe you should read and understand better.

skullkrusher:Keizer_Ghidorah: And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.

Forgot to respond to that part. Do you not care about that?

No I didn't. This treaty doesn't have the force of law so even if a country signs it, it does not magically make disabled people well taken care of.

I bolded it for you.Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, why do people like you feel the need to act like assholes towards the rest of the world for no reason?

people like me? I didn't vote against the treaty. I would've voted for it as I see no credible reason not to. This is of course why I am more perturbed by the reasoning behind voting against it much more than I am concerned that people voted against it.Of course, I'm not a handwringing farkhead so maybe that's where our disconnect lies?

You're an ASSuming farktard, that's for sure. Maybe if you spent less time imaging things about others and more time rationally discussing, you'd piss fewer people off. "Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!".

skullkrusher:Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell the world to be more like America, world decides to be more like America, sneer and snarl at the world for wanting to be more like America.

sure, be more like America. Pass laws protecting your people in your country like we did. This doesn't do that. This is an agreement to do that. Since we already did put the agreement into practice and our practice is the basis FOR the agreement, I'm not terribly upset.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

in what regard? Finding the frightening level of paranoia used as justification to reject this treaty as the only truly upsetting aspect of the whole thing? Sorry.

And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.

Forgot to respond to that part. Do you not care about that?

Seriously, why do people like you feel the need to act like assholes towards the rest of the world for no reason?

skullkrusher:Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well, if the current Yay votes remain in place, the Dems can get a couple of votes closer when the new Senators come in.

sweet! I hope this meaningless piece of congressional business is resolved in the affirmative post haste! How else are we going to lead the world in compassion and equitable treatment for the disabled unless we sign a powerless treaty based on laws we already passed and govern ourselves with?!

/hope the snark wasn't too thick

Tell the world to be more like America, world decides to be more like America, sneer and snarl at the world for wanting to be more like America.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.

Seth'n'Spectrum:The Republicans want the U.S. to have absolute freedom of action in all manners so as to never have obligations. This isn't a policy based on rationalism, it's one based on very, very rigid adherence to theoretical dogma.

There's no sense bringing sense into this conversation. The more conservative Republicans, the ones that are determined to see the U.S.A. not as part of a global community, bound by the same rules as the rest of the world, but as its eventual lord and master, push back as a matter of dogma against anything that smacks of global community. It's bizarre, but it's consistent.

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.

There weren't any Democrats who voted against it. Where did you hear that?

hawcian:Talondel: Philip Francis Queeg: It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.

That assumes that other governments would base their decision to adopt or reject the treaty on what we here in the US do with it, which is not only unfounded but contradicted by the article:

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens.

qorkfiend: You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?

I get that it doesn't matter if the US joins the treaty or not, unlike the vast majority of people posting in this thread. Countries that want to join and be bound by the treaty (including the 126 that already have) are still free to do so. This vote doesn't have any impact on them.

Joining the treaty would not have affected current law in the US one bit (and that is according to those who supported it). The only way it may have benefited Americans is if the US joining the treaty encouraged other countries to join, but as I already pointed out, that argument is specious at best. But hey, count on Fark to make a big deal out of something that won't actually do a damn thing to actually help the disabled.

Except that the Senate has bills that do effectively nothing all the damn time. Blocking this out of some absurd notion that it somehow breeches US sovereignty (or something something abortions!) is ridiculous. It's basically saying we won't reaffirm the rights of disabled people because NEENER NEENER YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO! It's the kind of gesture that makes us look like idiotic assholes, which is something to be reasonably perturbed about.

Republicans and their shills and trolls on Fark don't give a fart in a hurricane about anything other than their petty little hatreds. For a group that calls themselves "The Party of Personal Responsibility" and prides themselves on being followers of Jesus Christ, they do everything they can to shirk responsibility and do the exact opposite of what Jesus and God taught and commanded.

USA: Hey, we've invented this set of rules that prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.The world: That's pretty cool! Can we implement this worldwide?USA: Fark you! Get orf moi laaaand!

Every day I am more and more convinced that the U.S. is almost full of total idiots and that we're coming towards a point where the entire thing is going to explode. I don't see how things can continue when we've got idiots like this in just about every American institution out there. And it's getting worse.

The Troof hurts:flux: The Troof hurts: It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.

Yes it is. So why block it?

Why get worked up about it? We already lead the world by having the ADA as an example. Why does the UN have any bearing on this? These countries should have passed their own version of the ADA by now if they were serious about helping disabled folks. Instead, they sign on to a treaty with no balls as a feelgood measure. We still lead the world. Everyone needs to calm down with the faux-rage.

It's PRECISELY because people respond like this that the Republicans get away with this tripe, and keep getting reelected. "We already have this! We can't keep helping other people! They should do stuff like this by themselves! Let them figure it out! We're good enough; if they're unhappy, it's their problem!"

Does any of that sound familiar? Does it sound like something Republicans would rally behind?

Actually, that's what's going on here. This is the lasting legacy of the Jesse Helms - John Bolton axis in Republican foreign policy. The theory is that all treaties are bad even when they're harmless. The more treaties that are signed, the more international governance is created and the less freedom of action there is left for states (nevermind that the U.S. would never take those actions).

The Republicans want the U.S. to have absolute freedom of action in all manners so as to never have obligations. This isn't a policy based on rationalism, it's one based on very, very rigid adherence to theoretical dogma.

Look, "conservatives", your name and stance doesn't mean you have to oppose anything and everything involving moving forward because of "principle".

You can accept that time moves always forward.You can accept that nothing ever stays the same.You can accept that treating all human beings as humans beings is a GOOD thing.You can accept that equality for everyone is a GOOD thing.You can accept that caring for the disabled is a GOOD thing.You can accept that the world is not going to end because you decided to take a step into the 21st century.

Or, you can continue to be whiny stubborn little brats and be left to extinction. No skin off of our backs. But STOP trying to take everyone else with you.

you would think but the country's laws that the treaty was modeled after didn't even sign it.

See...this is an actual diplomatic problem. A real, live issue, the sort that has been plaguing us throughout the history of politics, where all a country has to do after passing a law banning sign language or some other idiocy is say "Wait--even the folks this law is MODELED after didn't sign it! Why should we care?!".

Darth_Lukecash:Holy crap- poor Bob Dole... Brought out for support-only to be farked by his own party.

You're talking about a man who sponsored two different universal-insurance/individual-mandate health bills in his time in the Senate. He couldn't make the Kansas House of Reps at this point, let alone be the national VP or Presidential nominee. I'm not sure who thought (okay, McCain probably) trotting him out would help. The current GOP hates guys like Dole.

skullkrusher:CynicalLA: skullkrusher: You just white knighted for a guy who is saying that the Republicans who voted for this treaty are "traitors".I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot. I'll make a note of it.

A lot ASSumptions right there. I wouldn't expect anymore from you and keep up the good work.

no, no ASSumptions needed. It's right here in the thread. CapeFearCadaver also noticed.

Please never respond to me and I will do the same. You are the most annoying person on this site. The guy I was responding to has lied many times and that's all I was commenting on. Get back to your regular circle-jerk.

FTA: The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will "raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference."

"Dammit, if we can't teach our retarded kids how to hate, and can't get 'em to breed more retarded kids we can fill with hate, the nation's at risk of becoming rational!"

Good job, GOP. Once again, your teabagger Tafurs have made this country come full-circle - a couple of decades ago, we proposed the very legislation used to drive this global effort, only to have us reject it because we've managed to become that much dumber in just a couple of decades.

Every time Republicans gain any power, any at all, the country loses progress and the rest of the world continues to move on. Heckuva job, GOP. Heckuva job. You're the "Party of No", all right, even at your own expense.

Yes, he would. But then would he turn around and deny bread to another after giving bread to the first? Would you kindly remind me what Jesus said about hypocrits?

Who is being denied anything? Anyone with disabilities has far more rights here than in almost any other country on the planet. How does some BS UN treaty affect this?

The UN treaty is actually based on the US ADA... the idea here was that we could lead the world and affirm our commitment to those rights... instead, just like through so many other issues, the party that talks about leading the world shows just how unprepared it is to actually do it.

LordJiro:Republicans are complete, utter scum. This should surprise nobody. If you vote Republican, you are an asshole, period. There are different CATEGORIES of asshole, sure (Rich asshole, fundamentalist asshole, bigoted asshole, just plain stupid asshole, etc.), and combinations thereof, but no matter which category you fall under, YOU. ARE. AN. ASSHOLE.

I think there are some delusional people out there who think they're still voting for Nixon like republicans (started the EPA) or maybe reasonable conservatives... but they don't understand that the GOP isn't that party any more, and these black helicopter loons who are afraid of Rusty Shackleford, the NIH, and Roswell's aliens are now the core of their senate and congressional delegations.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:For the record (and the dumpsters of history), here are your 38 elected senators who have a problem with equal treatment for disabled people. Notice what they all have in common with each other???

Talondel:I'm late to this party and relatively certain no one will read this, but I have to ask: Who cares?

The U.S. is already one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to providing for the disabled. Here we have both the federal ADA, and most states have something roughly equivalent. The majority of other countries, even those we often consider to be more progressive or advanced than us, have no similar law.

Spend some time traveling with a disabled person in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East and you'll quickly see the differences. Sidewalks and doorways are not wide enough to accommodate a standard size wheelchair. Buildings that can only be accessed by stairs are everywhere. No one has a handicapped friendly public rest room (and if they did it probably wouldn't matter, since there's a decent chance it would be on another floor of the building that can only be reached by stairs).

It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.

I've literally never understood this argument. Who the fark cares what we look like to the international community? If the international community jumped off a bridge would we look like an asshole for not following along? This is the United States, we do what we want, when we want, however we want and life is pretty great living here aside from when you libs want to tax us all to death. Screw the UN and the international community.

If troll: -10/10, way too obvious, and poorly wordedIf serious: You are a perfect example of what is wrong with this country.

Do you think the rest of the world just scratches their head in confusion at the United States? Heck, I'm American and I don't know why we allow what we do half the time. For instance, try explaining the history of the United Nation follow by the current stance of the United States with the United Nation .... and it sounds completely farked.

Mrbogey:You clearly never read his bill. It didn't address protecting women from rape.

It requires literacy to realize this.

umm:Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) introduced an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would prevent the federal government from funding contractors whose employee contracts prevent workers from pursuing allegations of rape against co-workers.

I can see the BS you are trying to pretend. I think you are pretending since it's after the fact that doesn't stop rape but if you believe that then you would think rape laws also have no affect because they are also after the fact.

jj325:The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard

Scorecards. Pledges. Why does the GOP make a mockery of our political system?

It's all they have got. Otherwise they might have to do actual legislating. Why uphold the Constitution when you can uphold pledges that allow them to do absolutely nothing while pretending they have principles?

i am going to write a form email to the effect that the senator receiving it is a dummy and not fit to be in congress. then i'm going through the no votes and emailing each and every one. it may take a couple of hours and won't do much for anyone but me but i'm doing it anyway.

need to figure out how to cut and paste my personal info into their email submital forms.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:For the record (and the dumpsters of history), here are your 38 elected senators who have a problem with equal treatment for disabled people. Notice what they all have in common with each other???

And BOTH of my senators (much as it pains me to have to call them that, but that's what I get for living in Kentucky) voted against it. Not that this is any surprise, they ARE two of the biggest pigfarkers in Congress. But still- way to go, asswipes.

I rarely actually directly contact them about things since it's generally pointless, but this is so pants-on-head stupid that I think it's merited....

The funny thing (to me at least) is that their pledge not to sign anything in a lame duck session was almost certainly because they expected to have won the Senate and didn't want the outgoing losers to ramrod things through. Instead, they lost and are just acting like ever more sore losers.

Cletus C.:Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?

That should be a reason not to hesitate to endorse and pass it. But this is about a paranoid fear of one world government that gets projected on to the UN, resulting in a belief that the US should never, ever be beholden to the UN on anything.

naughtyrev:I think they are worried that if we give equal treatment to the disabled, next thing you know, the mentally disabled will be winning elections and you'll have morons voting down sensible treaties in the Senate and....oh.

Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum all ran for the presidency this year. I think that ship has sailed.

I think they are worried that if we give equal treatment to the disabled, next thing you know, the mentally disabled will be winning elections and you'll have morons voting down sensible treaties in the Senate and....oh.

I have met Richard Burr on a number of occasions, ranging from formal work settings to fund raisers to private charity events. Every. single. farking. time he was a douche's douche, going out of his way to verbally fellate Tom Coburn, and basically doing his utmost to prove that he could be the stoogiest stooge who ever stooged when it came to corporate interests. What a tool.

Corvus:Grand_Moff_Joseph: CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

The worst part is, these fools keep getting elected.

Serious. How in the hell has not every sane person not left the GOP by now?

They have. They all lost in primary elections. Hell, when even Dick Armey jumps ship, you know they're too far gone.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

The worst part is, these fools keep getting elected.

Serious. How in the hell has not every sane person not left the GOP by now?

CapeFearCadaver:What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

Then you had better not read this, because this Congress is likely to reject a much-needed climate change treaty.

CapeFearCadaver:What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:For the record (and the dumpsters of history), here are your 38 elected senators who have a problem with equal treatment for disabled people. Notice what they all have in common with each other???

Here are the Senators who voted against the Franken amendment to protect American women from being raped overseas while working for defense contractors (in 2010):

Sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the UN is one between sovereign entities.

Yes and no. The UN is sovereign in a sense, but not in the sense that you're implying, which is to say a sovereign state.The UN isn't a sovereign state. It's an organization OF sovereign states. It has no authority in and of itself beyond what its members agree to grant it.

Think about it: your state is composed of counties or parishes, depending on where you live. But it is the state that is sovereign, not the counties/parishes. They have exactly as much authority as the state chooses to delegate, and no more.

The UN is the inverse of that. It is like a 'state' where the counties are sovereign, but the 'state' itself has no authority.

Consider these two passages stolen shamelessly from the relevant Wikipedia articles, both of which are authoritative enough for a Fark argument:

The definition of a sovereign state:

A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.[1] It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[2] It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.

1. The UN has no geographic area.2. It has no permanent population3. It is entirely dependent on donations (dues) from member organizations for its survival (yes, it gets monies from other sources, but not enough to operate on)

In short, it fails all 3 tests for status as a sovereign state.

Nor does it see itself as such a state:

Shortly after its establishment the UN sought recognition as an international legal person due to the case of Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations[6] with the advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The question arose whether the United Nations, as an organisation, had "the capacity to bring an international claim against a government regarding injuries that the organisation alleged had been caused by that state."[7]

The Court stated: the Organization was intended to exercise and enjoy, and is in fact exercising and enjoying functions and rights, which can only be explained on the basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to operate upon an international plane ... Accordingly, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Organization is an international person. That is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties are the same as those of a State ... What it does mean is that it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and that it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.[8]

In summary: the UN is at best a sovereign person, and is in no way a sovereign state. Sorry, but you fail.

Sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the UN is one between sovereign entities.

kbronsito:Quite the opposite. That language is meant to keep the disabled from a) being denied reproductive health care because they (and their potentially disabled offspring) are not worth the investment or b) being forced to have an abortion because they are not considered able to care for a child or c) being forcibly sterilized for the same reasons

c) is quite the issue, actually. Especially in places most Americans can't identify on a map, but where they actually take the UN seriously because of all the aid they provide.

In Swaziland, for example, 25% of the population has HIV, and that population is growing, not shrinking. There have been serious proposals to forcibly sterilize all HIV-positive citizens, regardless of their behavioral risk (ie, even if you were born with it or contracted it from a lying cheating partner), as a way of stopping the spread of the disease.

And that's just HIV. It's my understanding that it's the same for pretty much every other disability as well, but HIV is the one I've personally worked with and know the most about.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:For the record (and the dumpsters of history), here are your 38 elected senators who have a problem with equal treatment for disabled people. Notice what they all have in common with each other???

And if they had less R's voting against it the GOP leadership would have forced some other R to take the dagger and vote against. Voting for any R is the same outcome as voting for the most extreme one.

"The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia"

Yes, you read that right - Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty. Yet, here are comments from our elected officials (and their masters):

''I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society,'' said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

"The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will ''raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference.''

"The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard. It repeated the argument that the treaty ''would erode the principles of American sovereignty and federalism.''

kbronsito:I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty. I've read the whole thing and participated in meetings to select language. I'm pretty sure it doesn't include anything in there that would allow the UN to take over America... sure, the middle eastern countries included some language about making sure the disabled were protected in occupied territories to see if they could make israel look bad... but that was moved from the treaty into the non-binding preable.

also the mid-east countries took out all the language about allowing people with disabilities receive information about sexuality (which was stupid because as a non-discrimiantion treaty it only asked that they be given the same information as their non-disabled peers. So if your country is run by a bunch of primitive prudes that provide zero information on sexuality to its citizens, you were free to do that for the disabled as well).